Pages

Friday, May 25, 2012

Accused of theft after a break in at the local university museum, an Egyptian brother and sister that run a convenience store in the Pacific Northwest must find the real culprits before suspicious townsfolk discover their dark secret.

How It Works

Email Rob the first ten pages of your feature length screenplay (in pdf. format) along with a logline and title. Every Friday one of us (or a guest reviewer) posts one writer's work along with notes and a:

Rating

Trash It (Start over.)

Take Another Pass (You're onto something, but it needs more work.)

More Please (I'm hooked. What happens next?)

Somebody Shoot This!

Readers then vote and comment on your work.

This week Dan read the first 10 pages of BINDS THAT TIE by Lizz-Ayn Shaarawi

We open this week's pages from Lizz-Ayn Shaarawi (a consistent, much appreciated commentator on this blog by the way) in a small convenience store, in the wee hours of the morning. Two Egyptian young adults (Zahra and Amir) are operating the store when a suspicious man in a baseball hat enters. Here is the very first line of dialogue:

ZAHRA (V.O.)

I promise you, when that man walked in our store, we had no intention of eating his brain.

Wow. Exciting, right? I sat up in my seat when I read that. Does this intriguing set-up live up to its promise? Let's find out...

First, before I delve into the pages themselves, I will just say that if I have one quip with Lizz-Ayn's logline, it's with the phrase "dark secret" - this is vague, when I feel it should be revealing. I know that the intention is to hook the reader, but a logline needs to give me an idea of what the story is about. "Dark secret" tells me nothing.

Okay, so getting back to our opening scene: as you might have guessed, our early morning customer Mr. Baseball Hat is up to no good. He slams a six-pack of beer on the counter at the register, but then also pulls a gun on the attendant, our male hero Amir (who has a "dangerous feline grace" about him - love that description!).

Amir is having none of this burglary. In fact, he's up to something himself, and we figure that out when he leaps over the counter, proceeds to snap Mr. Baseball Hat's neck, and then crack the man's skull open, feasting on dead would-be-robber's internal gray matter. Zahra, our female hero, joins in on the bloody man meal.

Say it with me, guys: ewwww......

However cool I think the gore at this point is, my first and probably one of my biggest issues with these pages also emerges in my mind: what kind of movie is this supposed to be? Is it a comedy? Horror? Is this scene supposed to be funny, or is it supposed to be shocking/intense? I don't get a good sense of the tone in the writer's voice. Personally, I really, really want it to be a silly comedy (because, well...brain-feeding reanimated mummies, right?), but I feel like maybe the writer is wanting us to take it more seriously. And I don't know if with this over-the-top concept that's possible. Others may disagree, but there you go.

So, yes - these two youngins are ancient mummies, walking amongst us: Zahra explains that her and Amir are "reanimated, and living with the, well, living". I thought that line was a nice way of satisfying our questions for now (specifically: "How are these mummies alive in present day?")...however, I think the writer makes a questionable choice at this point by introducing some quick flashbacks to try and give us a little more context on the world of the undead. To me they were unnecessary, confusing, and slowed down the story (when potentially, they could have at least provided with some humor). Others may disagree, but there you go.

After the quick historic detour, we are back in the convenience store where Zahra and Amir quickly clean up their bloody mess and dispose of robber man's body (another side point, not sure about anyone else but I assumed these two Egyptians were brother and sister - I'm not so positive that was clear).

The scene then kind of extends and fizzles out as we get not one, but two more customers (neither of which provide as much drama as the first guy): one, a racist hick who eyes down Amir and then leaves without event, and also a friendly deputy who shows up, and invites Amir and Zahra to an Egyptian exhibit at the nearby college. Of course, Amir and Zahra - being the hungry, healthy mummies that they are - see the deputy as potential brain food (is that a pun? I don't know, apologies either way).

So they accept.

At home that evening, as Amir and Zahra prepare for the exhibit, we get our first sense of who these people are at their core (well, one of them at least). Zahra makes a comment that she and Amir will never "rid themselves of the stench of death". So apparently, while Zahra enjoys how the man meal tastes going down, it maybe doesn't sit too well with her after the fact. I thought this was a nice internal conflict to show us, though I did feel it was a little forced and maybe didn't fit with the unbridled, ravenously feeding Zahra we had just seen at the convenience store.

Our last couple pages take place at the college museum exhibit, where we meet a couple professors who show off some Egyptian artifacts which have been recently unearthed - one particular artifact triggers another flashback, this one a memory of Zahra's - it details an attack on ancient Egypt, and we see Amir and Zahra (pre-mummification) fall victims to the mighty Roman sword. Sadly, I feel like this flashback was even more of a hindrance to the story than the last ones. We know Amir and Zahra were dead at one point, we don't need to reveal the circumstances now, or probably ever in the entire film.

It's pretty uncanny that you see so many flashbacks in amateur scripts (and I am just as guilty as the next guy concerning them) - nine times out of ten, they're unnecessary, they add nothing, they're cliche, and most importantly - they slow the narrative down so much. And yet, we still go to them...why is that? I don't know. Probably because they're easy...don't do the easy thing, guys!!! Dig deeper.

So, to recap: I think I love this concept - mummies living amongst 21st century modern America, feasting on our brains in secret...just...cool. The mummy attack was a great way to open, and I felt like it was the start of something potentially really exciting - but alas, for me it devolved a into something a little more mundane and unsure of itself in comparison. My other big issues with the execution were the similar lack of sense of tone or genre, the writer's need to give us too much information up front (and to overstay her welcome in a scene), and our female hero - whose character is a little unclear and vague (and maybe even mopey) at this point.

I will give this baby a "Take Another Pass!" and look forward to seeing where Lizz-Ayn takes this cool idea to in future drafts.

Friday, May 18, 2012

Two struggling plumbers hatch a plan to steal Elvis Presley's toilet from Graceland to sell to an eccentric Japanese collector.

How It Works

Email Rob the first ten pages of your feature length screenplay (in pdf. format) along with a logline and title. Every Friday one of us (or a guest reviewer) posts one writer's work along with notes and a:

The logline is pretty succinct. It conveys a good sense of what the story is about. The problem I see is with the premise itself. Why do these plumbers need to steal the King's toilet? Plenty of people are struggling out there. But these guys are employed, as plumbers! The last time I had work done on my toilet I got hosed. I need a pretty compelling reason to believe that these guys would be willing to risk everything and commit grand larceny. Let's see if Wayne was able to pull it off.

In the first scene we meet Randy and Russ. Randy's description could use some work, but this line about Russ is brilliant. He's, "a forty watt bulb with gigawatt ideas." Wayne neglects to indicate his age however, which leaves me clueless as to how to envision him. Also, having both their names start with the same letter made it difficult to follow. You need to eliminate anything that could potentially confuse your reader.

I go into more detail about this scene in my notes, but one thing I didn't mention was when Randy gets covered by a geyser of feces. Comedy is about as subjective as it gets, so maybe other people will laugh at this, but I'm just left shaking my head. It came across as way too obvious and expected.

Next we move to a bar scene, where we meet yet another character whose name begins with the letter R. I really got confused here and had to read the page a second time. I think this scene fell flat because there was very little conflict in it. Also, does it need to take place in a bar? I feel like I've seen this scene countless times before. It's where you'd expect to see a plumber after work. Since this is a comedy I'd put them somewhere you wouldn't expect, maybe a pottery class or a weight loss session?

Then we move to a scene where Randy is working on an old acquaintance's toilet. I didn't see the purpose of this scene. It seems that removing it would have no impact on the rest of the story. There was some emotion and conflict, but no purpose. I'm not sure if I coined this acronym (or if my subconscious ripped it off from someone else) but every good scene must have PECs: purpose, emotion and conflict.

We then find Randy and Russ visiting the Rock Museum. This is where the inspiration to steal the toilet comes from, but again there's no conflict. Maybe introduce a security guard, tour guide or another visitor to stir things up. Also, I'd send them to the museum on a plumbing job. Otherwise, it seems as if they arrive there simply to serve the plot.

The final scene of the first ten pages takes place back at Swank's Bar. This is where Russ reveals his plan (to steal the toilet) to Randy. Is this the best place to plan a felony? I'd consider having this discussion start in the museum scene and then move to a more private locale.

Comedy is a tough genre. I'm sure others will disagree, but I just didn't find this funny. The jokes seemed to rely primarily on clique word play and one liners. A bigger problem is the lack of an inciting incident. Russ comes up with this plan to steal the toilet, but why? It's not like they've lost their jobs or been left by their wives, not that you want to go that way either. But I need something to happen. Something that will lead me to believe that their hatching and acting upon such a crazy scheme seems plausible.

There is some good writing here and I think Wayne has potential as a screenwriter. I considered giving this one a Take Another Pass, but the premise killed it for me. I just don't think it's worth spending your time and effort on this one.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Three people living under the same roof search for their own personal strain of vengeance.

How It Works

Email Rob the first ten pages of your feature length screenplay (in pdf. format) along with a logline and title. Every Friday one of us (or a guest reviewer) posts one writer's work along with notes and a:

I enjoyed these pages. The writer does a great job of setting tone and mood. He’s got a great visual style, and a good ear for tension and dialogue. That said, I think my biggest suggestion would be that the writer trust the reader more. It’s clear he’s worked very hard at sculpting this scene, but the signs of that hard work are a bit too visible in these pages. The script is over-written in many ways, but still doesn’t quite seem to get at the heart of the story to come.I think the root of the problem here is that at its core, this scene plays more like a gripping 3 page opening than a tight, effective first ten pages. Your first ten pages need to set up your characters, what they want, and what is going to stand in the way of them achieving that goal. An opening scene sets the tone, raises a few questions, and moves us to the edge of our seats, eagerly anticipating the rest of the movie.That said, the writer might want to consider cutting these ten pages into 3. In those three pages, they can do exactly what great Tarantino-esque openings do. 1) Introduce lovable cut throats, 2) Kill someone 3) Laugh about it. 4) Tease what’s coming next. It might seem drastic to cut seven of these pages out, but the shorter this scene plays, the better it will work.I think the biggest place the writer could cut from here is most likely dialogue. As mentioned above, there is great imagery in this script. A door hiding a well lit room. A sudden burst of light. Feet crossing the screen, inspecting a dead body. Let this imagery do the work for you! A lot of the dialogue here pretty much sets up the boss/lackey relationship, which is familiar, and can be swiftly set up in one simple exchange, “Get the morphine.” “Why? I don’t want to.” “Do it!”That’s really all you need to know about these characters. Everything else can be shown with imagery.To that end, although it’s definitely a strong choice to keep the camera on the ground for this scene, it seems to be hurting more than it’s helping. In these pages, the action is often confusing because of this. We don’t ever get a description of either Julian or Kev, and they’re occasionally referred to ‘first man’ or ‘second man.’ It’s hard to follow what’s going on. Generally, the script is only intermittently true to the whole ‘camera on the floor’ idea, at times remaining loyal (when we only see feet for instance) but at other times telling us things in the action we couldn’t possibly know from our current vantage point. On the first page we learn that Julian is behind the door, without ever meeting Julian, we also learn that he’s a landlord, although the audience would have no way of knowing that, and so on and so forth. Really, unless there’s a very strong reason for such a limited vantage point, the stylistic points it earns you are not nearly worth how it neuters your story telling. Movies are all about images, so give us something to really latch onto. The only way I could really see this working is if it turned out that the camera was a hand held, and it turned out someone was hiding with it and the whole movie was shot this way. But that does not seem to be the case with this script.

Another symptom of this problem is the term ‘we see’ or ‘we’ anything, really. Every usage of ‘we’ reminds the reader that he is a member of the audience, while they should really feel like they are part of the scene to begin with. The goal is to make the reader feel like he is there, and using ‘we see,’ and putting the unmoving camera on the floor, and telling us things we can’t see not only takes us out of the scene, it reminds us that we’re reading a movie script, and everything becomes less cinematic as a result.To that end, there are a few additional stylistic quirks that similarly take the reader out of the story. The first – parentheticals. The tone and characters in this script are very clear, so instructions like (his words are quiet but fierce) are unnecessary. Like ‘we see,’ this technique pulls the reader out of the script. This is part of the ‘overwriting’ I mentioned at the top of this review. Much of the action is also overwritten. Lines like “His words are over enforced with a bang as something heavy hits the floor” are confusing because they’re attempting to tell the reader too much about the scene. A simple, “BANG. Something heavy hits the floor,” might be more effective and certainly more visceral.

This script has a lot going for it. It’s creative and exciting. It’s got characters that clearly have some issues between them, and I want to follow them along on a journey. But the first ten pages need to set that journey up more, and really prime me for what’s to come. Set up a bigger conflict, an antagonist, and a direction for the screenplay, and I’m with this script the whole way through.

(*) Take Another Pass

Script Quack provides professional script analysis at affordable prices. Use discount code 'feedbackfriday' for 10% off any service on this page: scriptquack.com/discountpage.html

Friday, May 4, 2012

In less than a 24 hours zombies rise all over town. A teen rock band struggles not only to survive, but to play the show of their lives.

How It Works

Email Rob the first ten pages of your feature length screenplay (in pdf. format) along with a logline and title. Every Friday one of us (or a guest reviewer) posts one writer's work along with notes and a:

LOGLINE: In less than a 24 hours zombies rise all over town. A teen rock band struggles not only to survive, but to play the show of their lives.
The best loglines contain the following: a clear goal, a sense of urgency, and high stakes. "Rock Not Dead" satisfies all three conditions!

Could it be improved? Perhaps: When zombies rise in a small town, a teen rock band struggles not only to survive, but to play the show of their lives.

What I like about this concept is that it is "the same but different." It's a zombie movie with a twist, and it reminded me of Zombieland.

So did this script do its winning concept justice? Let's find out!

The script opens with a group of teenagers playing the Rock Band videogame. But they're playing too loud, so Leonard's sister pulls the plug on their jamfest. Tyler leaves to go do homework, and then Leonard's creepy old neighbor comes out of nowhere and tells them they're playing too loud.

Then it's the next day and Leonard walks to school and sees a woman through said creepy old neighbor's window. At school Lynch and Leonard talk about logos and commercials and sing jingles. They ogle their female classmate, and talk about Nazism and some other things.

Then, in what might be the inciting incident, a postman gets pulled into the creepy old neighbor's home.

I really wanted to love this script. I did. But unfortunately there were too many problems and the story just wasn't engaging enough.

English isn't the writer's first language (he's from Argentina), so this could account for the numerous grammar and spelling errors. However, as mentioned by Carson Reeves on Scriptshadow, it is critical for these writers to find someone to proofread your script before you send it out. Another disconcerting red flag were the numerous semicolons that were used incorrectly.

Another problem was that the first ten pages moved too slowly. The dialog is leaden and feels unnatural, and there were strange references to obscure musicians and commercials that did nothing for the story.The conversations had no consequence, and the characters all act and sound the same. Try this test for the dialog of your script: cover up the names of your characters and see if someone can guess who said what. If they can't you have a problem. Give each character a style of speech! Some can be ramblers, some might speak in clipped phrases, some can have accents, some might always be misquoting famous people, and others might only pop in here and there to say something cryptic. Give your dialog (and your characters) texture!

As I mentioned in my notes, I had an issue with the description of Victoria. She is "blond" and "pretty." can we think of another adjective other than "pretty"? Aren't all actresses pretty unless otherwise stated?​ Instead, how about describing a particular trait that creates an image in our mind? The other characters have watered down, generic descriptions and it is hard to visualize them.

Something else that is critical lesson we've all broken at one point or another is the paragraph rule. In spec scripts, paragraphs should almost never exceed four lines. Lean writing is professional writing! When script readers pick up your scripts, they will hate you if they see giant blocks of text because you've just made their job harder. Make sure your script reads like a dream! 2-3 lines per paragraph is ideal. Make every word count!

Unfortunately, I have to give this script a "trash it" rating simply because the writer might want to consider getting a fresh start on this script.

Still, the premise is great! The writer should consider re-outlining the characters and coming up with another way to approach the execution of the script. Maybe moving the postman scene further to the start of the story and trimming down the conversation? Everything that does not advance the story or develop characters should be cut. Also, when he is done writing, he should ask someone else to proofread it.

Screenwriting is a difficult craft to master and feedback is intensely subjective, so I wish the writer best of luck!